coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Velenje.
7.  On 22 March 1994 and 11 February 1995 the applicant was injured while working for the Slovenian employer GVV in Russia. He consequently instituted two sets of civil proceedings in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages for the injuries sustained. In both proceedings an insurance company ZT was acting as an intervening party.
First set of proceedings
8.  On 21 January 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against GVV seeking damages in the amount of 2,050,000 tolars (approximately 8,550 euros) for the injuries sustained on 22 March 1994.
Between 23 July 1998 and 26 February 2001 the applicant lodged eight written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 24 November 1997 and 3 November 1999 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the ten hearings held between 23 April 1998 and 27 February 2001, one was adjourned due to the absence of both parties and one was adjourned due to the absence of the applicant
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 19 April 2001.
9.  On 26 April 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). GVV cross-appealed.
On 10 October 2002 the court dismissed both appeals.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 28 October 2002.
10.  On 15 November 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 19 February 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 22 March 2004.
Second set of proceedings
11.  On 9 June 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against GVV seeking damages in the amount of 2,056,616 tolars (approximately 8,570 euros) for the injuries sustained on 11 February 1995.
Between 12 March 1998 and 25 September 2001 the applicant lodged nine preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 12 November 1997 and 12 November 1999 he made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the five hearings held between 11 January 2000 and 23 October 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 14 January 2002.
12.  On 15 January 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.
On 12 March 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and increased the damages awarded.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 5 June 2003.
13.  On 12 June 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 9 December 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 13 January 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Gračanica, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
5.  On 18 September 2000 the applicant sought enforcement of a judgment awarding him compensation following an employment dispute with the company G. (“the debtor”). He applied for enforcement on the debtor’s bank account and on its movable property.
6.  On 6 February 2001 the Slatina Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Slatini) issued en enforcement order, which became final on 21 February 2001.
7.  On 24 October 2001 the court made a list of the debtor’s movable property in the applicant’s absence and scheduled a public auction for 25 January 2002. The auction was unsuccessful.
8.  Another public auction was held on 16 April 2002, which was again unsuccessful, as no bids were made.
9.  On 12 August 2002 the court made a new list of the debtor’s movables on which the applicant, who had been duly summoned, did not appear.
10.  On 28 October 2003 the applicant requested an injunction prohibiting the debtor to transfer or encumber shares it held in other companies.
11.  On 19 November 2003 the court held yet another unsuccessful public auction.
12.  On 6 July 2004 the applicant requested the court to order that the debtor should disclose its assets (prokazni popis imovine).
13.  On 23 July 2004 the debtor paid the applicant the principal amount of his claim, stating that it would satisfy the remainder of the claim within eight days.
14.  On 17 August 2004 the applicant informed the court that the claim had not been settled in full. The court forwarded the applicant’s submission to the debtor, for observations.
15.  On 27 September 2004 and 19 January 2005 the court imposed fines on the debtor, for failure to comply with its orders.
16.  On the latter date the court also denied the applicant’s motion for the disclosure of the debtor’s assets. At the same time, the court also dismissed the applicant’s motion for injunction prohibiting the transfer of the debtor’s shares. Instead it instructed the applicant to provide a detailed list and addresses of companies in which the debtor held such shares. On 25 January 2005 the applicant submitted the requested information.
17.  The proceedings are still pending.
18.  Meanwhile, on 10 June 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings.
19.  On 2 October 2002 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared his complaint inadmissible finding that the enforcement order had already been issued.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the Tula Region.
5.  In December 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his position.
6.  On 17 December 1997, according to the applicant, and 18 February 1998, according to the Government, the applicant and three other persons lodged an action against their former employer, a private company, for payment of wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
7.  On 13 May 1998 the Aleksin Town Court allowed the claim in part.
8.  The parties did not appeal and the judgment became final.
9.  On 27 September 1999 the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court granted the applicant’s request for a supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 13 May 1998 and remitted the case for a new examination.
10.  In February 2000 the applicant asked the Aleksin Town Court to examine his action in separate proceedings. The Town Court granted his request and adjourned the proceedings until 10 April 2000.
11.   The hearing of 10 April 2000 was adjourned until 21 August 2000 because the defendant did not attend.
12.  On 21 August 2000 the proceedings were stayed for one month because the applicant asked for additional time to amend his claims.
13.  On 25 September 2000 the Aleksin Town Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part.
14.  That judgment was quashed on appeal by the Tula Regional Court on 10 April 2000. The case was remitted for a new examination.
15.  Of the eleven hearings listed between September 2001 and April 2003, two hearings were adjourned because the judge was on sick leave, seven hearings were adjourned because the defendant did not attend or asked to stay the proceedings and two hearings were postponed at the applicant’s request.
16.  On 18 April 2003 Aleksin Town Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part.
17.  The judgment of 18 April 2003 was not appealed against and became final.
18.  On 11 October 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court of Tula granted the applicant’s action against the Ministry of Finance for outstanding unemployment benefits and awarded him 2,828.32 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 103 euros).
19.  On 16 April 2002 the Tula Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
20.  On 29 May 2002 the applicant filed a writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance, but the judgment was not enforced.
21.  On 2 December 2004 the judgment was enforced in full.
22.  On several occasions the applicant asked the Ministry of Finance for provision of unspecified information. No response followed.
9.  The first applicant, Pavittar Singh, a British citizen born in India in 1955, and the second applicant, Paramjit Kaur, an Indian national born in 1955, are married and living in the United Kingdom. The third applicant, Pawandeep Singh, an Indian national born on 9 October 1996, now lives with them.
10.  The first and second applicants had proved unable to have a second child and so adopted the baby of a cousin living in India. The immigration authorities refused permission for the child, the third applicant, to join the family in the United Kingdom as adoptions from India were not recognised for the purposes of entry clearance and the child fell outside the rules for entry as he was not adopted due to the inability of his parents to care for him.
11.  The applicants re-applied for entry and the Adjudicator upheld their appeal, finding discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention and a violation of Article 8.
12.  On 3 December 2003 the IAT upheld the appeal on behalf of the Entry Clearance Officer (United Kingdom Government). On 20 January 2004 the Tribunal refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
13.  On 30 April 2004 the Court of Appeal granted the applicants permission to appeal
14.  On 30 July 2004 the Court of Appeal decided that the Adjudicator had been entitled to conclude that family life, for the purposes of Article 8, had been established on the facts of the case, since there were substantial links between the sponsors and the child, and the adoption, although not recognised by UK law, was a further factor which militated in favour of family life.
15.   On 27 August 2004 the third applicant entered the United Kingdom.
4.  The applicants were born in 1961, 1965, 1959, 1950, 1976, 1978 and 1979 respectively, and live in Mersin.
5.  On 6 July 1993 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the request of the applicants’ predecessor for increased compensation, on 14 July 1994 the Mersin Civil Court awarded him additional compensation of 463,140,750 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 6 July 1993, the date of the transfer of the title deeds to the land.
7.  On 26 October 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
8.  On 17 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicants the amount of TRL 1,794,690,000, interest included.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Muurla.
5.  The applicant was employed by a bank, working in the relevant years 1989-90 in the bank’s new campaign to grant loans and to invest in property abroad.
6.  The applicant’s suspected offending in respect of credit decisions made without adequate guarantee arrangements, which led to the bank’s winding-up in the beginning of the 1990s, was reported to the police on 23 June 1992. The criminal investigation was begun by the police on 7 July 1992. A total of fourteen reports of offences had been made. The corresponding investigations lasted from 7 July 1992 to 9 December 1994 and from 9 April 1996 ending on 9 May 1996. On 7 August 1992 the police carried out a search at the applicant’s home and seized his assets, at which point he became aware that he was suspected of serious fraud in connection with his activities at the bank.
7.  The hearing of the case, which involved 33 defendants, began in the Salo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) on 7 March 1995. It included several adjournments and lasted approximately five years in total. The case was heard during a total of 68 days. The judgment was rendered on 24 March 2000 and it ran to almost 900 pages. The applicant was convicted of four counts of aggravated fraud and sentenced to a suspended term of one year and ten months’ imprisonment and a fine.
8.  On 4 March 2002 the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) gave judgment. It added a fifth count of serious fraud and increased the applicant’s sentence to four years and six months of unconditional imprisonment and a loss of military rank. The court decided to examine the case directly including the part which had been declared inadmissible by the District Court (charge 12), i.e. without returning the case to the District Court, referring to Article 6 of the Convention and the right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed therein. Furthermore, it stated in its reasons (p. 138) that it was taking the length of the proceedings into account as a factor lessening the sentence for all defendants in the case.
9.  On 30 October 2002 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.
10.  The applicant submitted an extraordinary appeal against the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, but it was rejected by the Supreme Court on 17 February 2003.
4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Mersin.
5.  On 20 July 1993 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicant in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 16 June 1994 the Mersin Civil Court awarded him additional compensation in the amount of 343,826,000 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 20 July 1993, the date of transfer of the title deeds.
7.  On 1 June 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
8.  On 17 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicant TRL 1,336,460,000, interest included.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Yakutsk.
5.  On 1 October 1999 the Yakutsk Town Court of Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic allowed the applicant’s claim against the Yakutsk Town Administration for provision of housing. The Town Court ordered that the administration:
“...provide Mr Kuksa and his family members with living premises that meet sanitary and technical requirements”.
6.  The judgment of 1 October 1999 was amended on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic on 14 September 2000. The Supreme Court ordered that the administration:
“...provide Mr Kuksa and his family members with well-equipped living premises in a stone building constructed after 1994”.
7.  On 22 December 2000 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, by way of supervisory-review proceedings and upon the applicant’s request, amended the judgment of 14 September 2000 and ordered that the administration:
“...provide Mr Kuksa with a three-room well-equipped flat in a new stone block of flats”.
8.  The judgment entered into force on the same day.
9.  In November 1999 the bailiffs’ service opened enforcement proceedings and in February 2000 charged 17 flats belonging to the Yakutsk Town Administration.
10.  On 31 May 2000 the Yakutsk Town Court, upon the complaint from the Town Administration, quashed the bailiffs’ charging order.
11.  After the decision of 31 May 2000 had been quashed on appeal and the case had been remitted for a fresh examination, the Yakutsk Town Court reconsidered the matter and discontinued the proceedings.
12.  In December 2000 the bailiffs charged 7 flats of the Town Administration and deposited them with the administration’s creditors. The applicant was not among them. The bailiffs also fined the Town Administration for its failure to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour. Those decisions were quashed by the Yakutsk Town Court, upon the administration’s appeal.
13.  On an unspecified date liquidation proceedings were instituted against the Yakutsk Town Administration and in February 2003 the bailiffs sent the writ of execution to the liquidation commission.
14.  At the time the application was lodged with the Court, the judgment of 1 October 1999, as amended on 22 December 2000, remained unenforced because the Town Administration possessed no available housing or financial resources to purchase a flat.
15.  On 14 November 2005 the Ministry of Building of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic offered the applicant to purchase a three-room flat at the Ministry’s expense. Four days later the applicant bought a three-room flat and submitted a copy of the contract to the Government of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.
16.  On 22 November 2005 the Ministry of Finance of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic paid the purchase price to the construction company and  on 6 December 2005 the company provided the applicant with keys to the flat and he and his family members moved into it.
5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Novovoronezh.
6.  The applicant receives an old-age pension. From April 1998 to April 1999 she received her pension several months in arrears. According to the applicant, inflation during this period meant that the pension paid several months in arrears had lost significant part of its value by the time it was paid.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an action against the Novovoronezh Social-Security Authority for index-linking of her pension in line with inflation.
8.  On 27 October 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region found for the applicant and ordered the defendant authority to pay the applicant 2,044.87 Russian roubles (RUR) as the pension indexation and RUR 91.79 as a court fee.
9.  The defendant authority did not appeal against the judgment. On 7 November 2000 the judgment came into force.
10.  On 21 November 2000 the Town Court issued a writ of execution for the total amount of RUR 2,136.66.
11.  On 23 November 2000 the Court Bailiffs’ Department of Novovoronezh instituted enforcement proceedings. It invited the Head of the Novovoronezh Social-Security Authority to pay the judgment debt within a fixed time limit. This was not done.
12.  On 6 December 2000 the bailiff issued an order for collection of the money from the defendant’s bank account. However, according to letter No. 3980 of 10 September 2001 from the Court Bailiffs’ Department, no money had entered the defendant’s bank account since 1 November 2000, which made it impossible to enforce the judgment.
13.  The applicant’s complaints about the non-enforcement to the Novovoronezh Town Prosecutor and the Voronezh Region Department of the Ministry of Justice were to no avail.
14.  On 14 December 2000 the bailiff applied to the Novovoronezh Town Court seeking for clarification as to the enforcement of judgments against the Social-Security Authority. By a decision of 17 January 2001 the court rejected this request.
15.  On 5 March 2001 the Bailiffs’ Department returned the writ of execution to the applicant notifying her that the judgment of 27 October 2000 could not be enforced because of the defendant’s lack of funds.
16.  The applicant’s further requests for execution of the judgment brought the same negative result communicated to the applicant by the Bailiffs’ Department on 18 October 2001, 30 August 2002, 29 May 2003, 23 June and 26 August 2005.
17.  On 5 September 2005 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Bailiffs’ Department anew.
18.  The judgment of 27 October 2000 has not been enforced to date.
5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Krasnoarmiysk, the Donetsk region.
6.  In 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Dimitrivsk Town Court against the Mine Construction Department of the Vuglebud State Joint Stock Company, seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. By decision of 20 June 1997, the court awarded the applicant UAH 8,317.13[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
7.  On 23 March 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the debtor’s lack of funds.
8.  In the years of 1997 – 1999 the applicant was paid UAH 4,868.29[2] in instalments. In June 2004 he was paid UAH 2,725.29[3].
9.  On 22 August 2005 the applicant was paid the remaining amount (UAH 723.55[4]) of the judgment debt.
5.  The applicant, Mr Abbas Sertkaya, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Muş. He is represented before the Court by Mr Orhan Tural, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
6.  On 12 July 1995 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment accusing the applicant and four other suspects under Article 125 of the Criminal Code, of being involved in seven different instances of setting forests on fire for terrorism purposes, in Bursa in 1994.
7.  On 19 July 1995 the Istanbul State Security Court held the first trial against the applicant and four other suspects.
8.  On 6 February 1996 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.
9.  On 4 May 1996 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand.
10.  On 27 February 1997 and 1 July 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court requested that the Bursa and Varto Criminal Courts obtain the statements of witnesses.
11.  On 22 September 1997 and 11 November 1997 these statements were obtained and sent to the Istanbul State Security Court.
12.  On 16 November 1999 the Public Prosecutor before the Istanbul State Security Court submitted his observations on the merits of the case. On the same day the applicant was released pending trial.
13.  On 13 February 2001 the applicant was acquitted of all charges on account of lack of evidence.
14.  On 21 February 2001 the decision became final in respect of the applicant.
7.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is now serving his sentence in Irkutsk.
8.  On 17 September 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having severely beaten a certain Mr D.
9.  On 19 December 2001 the Nazarovo Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region found the applicant and his co-defendants guilty of grievous bodily injuries, a criminal offence under Article 111 § 3 (a) of the Russian Criminal Code. The applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment in a correctional colony.
10.  On 23 December 2001 and 24 January 2002 the applicant submitted his statements of appeal. He contended that his co-accused had slandered him, that the forensic report had not reflected the facts as established by the trial court and that the investigation had not been sufficiently thorough. He asked that the conviction be quashed and his lawyer, Ms Struchenko, be invited to the appeal hearing.
11.  On 25 December 2001 Ms Struchenko submitted her statement of appeal. She pointed to discrepancies between the facts established by the trial court and their description in the judgment and sought re-characterisation of the criminal offence and/or reduction of the sentence.
12.  On 27 December 2001 the applicant requested the appeal court to examine the case in his absence.
13.  According to the applicant, neither he nor his lawyer was notified of the appeal hearing. According to the Government, on 20 February 2002 summonses for the appeal hearing were sent to Ms Struchenko’s legal office and to the detention facility where the applicant was held.
14.  On 5 March 2002 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the conviction in respect of the applicant, reduced the sentences for both of his co-accused and attributed a different legal characterisation to the offence committed by one of them. The applicant and his lawyer were not present at the appeal hearing, whereas his co-accused were both present and represented. According to the Government, the prosecutor was in attendance and made submissions to the appeal court.
15.  On 30 October 2003 the applicant received a summons for the hearing before the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court that had taken place on 5 March 2002. The summons was dated 27 February 2002.